Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly, it's up to the plaintiff to prove guilt, and the plaintiff said she has the rapist's DNA. The plaintiff is providing proof of guilt. Do you not get it?
The next step is for the defendant to show why the proof is hogwash. This is a simple step by providing his own DNA to show it does not match the rapist's.
Innocent people tends to want to prove they are innocent.
But what do I know. This must be the stable genius way of proving one's innocence - by acting suspiciously.
.
DNA in and of itself doesn't prove rape.
She says she has someone's DNA.....
The DNA doesn't prove anything, even if was taken from a vaginal swab......all that proves is intercourse.
She needs more than a DNA match to prove a rape allegation.....
So why entertain her with that much is she doesn't have more?
If you've ever been in your neighbor's house, you've left your DNA there.
But it doesn't mean that you broke in and burglarized the place.
Look people use documents from 20 years ago for some kind of evidence.
DNA......wow -- so do they have DNA for the rape?
And they are petitioning Trump for his DNA. That's a bold move.
Think about it - - that would eliminate any she said, he said....
Political weaponization of sexual assault claims seem to require little or no proof these days.
The sad irony of doing it to "help women" when it's just churning out a series of incredibly weak if not entirely unproven accusations is creating a whole "Jussie Smolletts" type haze around claims of sexual assault.
No big deal. Just another rape case against Trump that he is trying to get out of.
If some woman I never met accuses me of rape and say she has the rapist's DNA; I'd gladly provide mine and see it as a golden opportunity to clear my name.
But what do I know. There must be a reason the stable and totally moral genius is refusing provide his DNA to clear his name.
Political weaponization of sexual assault claims seem to require little or no proof these days.
The sad irony of doing it to "help women" when it's just churning out a series of incredibly weak if not entirely unproven accusations is creating a whole "Jussie Smolletts" type haze around claims of sexual assault.
If the lady in question has a DNA sample then this would be her attempt to actually PROCURE proof no? You should then be in favor of this since you do not like people making accusations with "no proof". She has a sample - that is physical evidence - it just needs to be matched. So I don't really think you can compare this to Jussie Smollett.
No big deal. Just another rape case against Trump that he is trying to get out of.
If some woman I never met accuses me of rape and say she has the rapist's DNA; I'd gladly provide mine and see it as a golden opportunity to clear my name.
But what do I know. There must be a reason the stable and totally moral genius is refusing provide his DNA to clear his name.
Yes, there is a difference in procedural. And that's the only difference.
What seems to get lost is that a woman was possibly raped by the sitting Potus.
Where was the scream for justice for a potential sexual assault victim, displayed by the right just mere days ago???
.
nothing gets lost. what is the possibility? she made a claim? from 1990? in a public place and no one saw it, heard it?
that doesn't represent a possibility. That doesn't represent a chance. that doesn't represent probable cause.
Where was the scream for justice for a potential sexual assault victim displayed by the right just mere days ago? i don't know what you are talking about? You mean conservatives pointing out the hypocrisy of the left in demanding Kavanaugh be lynched over unsubstantiated allegations from 40 years ago, vs the left claiming Tara Reid's unsubstantiated claims from 30 years ago are.... unsubstantiated.... ?
dude, your hypocrisy on that issue is yours. We have always stated that women making alligations don't get a "believe" chip or a "not believe chip". WE have always said, if someone makes an allegation, there should be presumption of innocents followed by Due Process that leads to factual findings to either generate probable cause of dismissal of the charges. period.
the left says women must be believed. that's just weird. until Joe became the guy running against Trump and all the sudden you want proof.
my point is that in all cases the person bringing a charge should have some proof. i don't care what the charge is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
